On the strength of a novel legal theory never before addressed by New York state courts, the Firm thwarted a motion to dismiss counterclaims brought on behalf of its client, a major life insurance company, which was sued for the death benefits on a life insurance policy. On behalf of the insurer, the Firm brought counterclaims on the theory that the individual whom plaintiff claimed was the original insured on the policy and whose death benefits plaintiff claimed a right to, was not actually the person who filled out the policy application and sat for the medical exam—rather, it was a much healthier, unknown imposter. Thus, the Firm argued, (i) the measuring life on the policy is the unknown imposter and not the named insured and (ii) to the extent plaintiff was claiming that the named insured was the original owner of the policy and the one who transferred interest in the policy to plaintiff, that purported insured could not legally have done so, since it was not his to transfer—it was the imposter’s. Plaintiff argued that the Firm’s position failed based on the well-established rule that life insurance policies in New York are “incontestable” after two years. The Kings County Supreme Court (Martin, J.) agreed with the Firm’s position, which had only been advanced once before, in a federal case in 1932. A copy of the Court’s decision can be found here.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Arleo, J.) entered partial summary judgment today in favor of our client, a national life insurance company, in an action brought to reinstate a lapsed life insurance policy. The Court agreed with the Firm’s arguments and entered judgment against plaintiff’s claims for violation of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, bad faith, breach of fiduciary duty, declaratory judgment, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The Firm obtained today a complete dismissal in the Supreme Court of New York (Suffolk County) (Pitts, J.) of claims that the Firm’s client, a national life insurance company, wrongfully failed to pay a death benefit on a life insurance policy. The Court agreed with the Firm’s arguments that, based on documentary evidence, the policy had lapsed before the insured passed away, and the client was not estopped from lapsing the policy by its alleged acceptance of a change of beneficiary form following the lapse. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, without leave to replead.
Fishkin Lucks won a defense verdict today in The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of its clients The Home Depot, Inc. and Rust-Oleum Corporation, against Plaintiffs’ claims that Home Depot had negligently retained a former Rust-Oleum subsidiary that negligently installed a 100% solids epoxy cement floor coating. After hearing testimony from ten fact and expert witnesses and closing arguments in which Plaintiffs requested in excess of $1M in damages, the jury deliberated for less than an hour before returning the defense verdict.
Fishkin Lucks prevailed today in the Supreme Court of New York (New York County, Comm. Div.) (Oing, J.) on a motion to dismiss ten claims asserted against the Firm’s clients, an international telecommunications company and its individual members, brought by one of the company’s former members. Following extensive briefing and a lengthy hearing, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s derivative action, along with his direct claims for breach of the parties’ operating agreement, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and corporate waste and mismanagement, as well as Plaintiff’s equitable claims seeking an accounting, appointment of a receiver, and judicial dissolution.
Fishkin Lucks prevailed today before The International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, which entered a Final Award in the principal sum of $6,583,004 plus another $361,347 in costs in favor of the Firm’s client, an international money transfer service provider, against its former money transfer agent in Pakistan. The client and its former agent were parties to a Representation Agreement (“Agreement”), pursuant to which the former agent agreed to provide money transfer services within the client’s money transfer network into and out of Pakistan. Under the Agreement, the former agent was required to turn over the principal and a percentage of the fees it collected on transfers from locations within Pakistan. After the former agent ceased making payments in accordance with the client’s settlement calculations, and breached the terms of a Repayment Agreement, the Firm commenced arbitration on the client’s behalf pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. The Final Award entered by an arbitral tribunal composed of three arbitrators, following written submissions and live testimony, represented a complete victory for the client.
